Anti-U.N. Agenda 21 Activists Gain Influence Across U.S.

New World Order conspiracy theory is starting to have a real influence on local politics in the United States. Leslie Kaufman and Kate Zernike report for the New York Times:

Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.

They are showing up at planning meetings to denounce bike lanes on public streets and smart meters on home appliances — efforts they equate to a big-government blueprint against individual rights.

“Down the road, this data will be used against you,” warned one speaker at a recent Roanoke County, Va., Board of Supervisors meeting who turned out with dozens of people opposed to the county’s paying $1,200 in dues to a nonprofit that consults on sustainability issues.

Local officials say they would dismiss such notions except that the growing and often heated protests are having an effect.

In Maine, the Tea Party-backed Republican governor canceled a project to ease congestion along the Route 1 corridor after protesters complained it was part of the United Nations plot. Similar opposition helped doom a high-speed train line in Florida. And more than a dozen cities, towns and counties, under new pressure, have cut off financing for a program that offers expertise on how to measure and cut carbon emissions…

share this:

Related

Your “individual rights” In this case are slowly murdering everything everywhere tea-tards, get over it you greedy little fucks.
We all know it is just a fucking astro turf group anyway, they only really rail against things that cut into some corporation’s profits.

Hadrian999

you know the U.N. might be something to fear if the didn’t totally fuck up everything they try to do in epic proportions

TruthersSoSmart

Like the worldwide U.N.-mandated drug war? Nothing to worry about there, move along.

Hadrian999

the drug war is pretty much the definition of a fuck up, I’f you want to really know how effective the U.N is ask Romeo Dallaire

TruthersSoSmart

The U.N has been effective at getting pretty much EVERY country in the world to sign on to the Drug War. How is that ineffective? Cannabis is illegal EVERYWHERE due to the UN. They are VERY effective at pressuring governments to sign on to certain agendas.

They are not effective at actually solving problems and uniting the world in peace. Maybe you thought that was their goal all along, right? Just like Romeo Dallaire (who is a hero).

Take a look at what they do well, and what they don’t, and you’ll see what their goals are.

Hadrian999

cannabis is illeal everywhere, it is also available everywhere, the prohibition is only effective in creeating blackmarkets and criminal gangs. The U.N. isn’t some independent organization pushing events, it is a creation of western powers to whitewash western imperialismthats it, well and it enable some good ol’ fashioned graft by it’s officers and beaurocrats. anything that the un attempts that isn’t a US or nato directive fails completely.

jigglyboobs

duh, if it weren’t available everywhere, what would justify the bigger and bigger budgets and the ever-increasing erosion of our civil rights in the name of enforcement. linear logic is not your friend when trying to decipher their motives. the “failure” works in their favor as well, by justifying ever-more-draconian enforcement measures…this ain’t checkers, baby; it’s chess.

YaBooSucksToYouFascists

They might be “failing” now, but will they with tighter control?

Where do you get the idea that if the UN declared something, it would automatically work? And that if it hasn’t worked, that it is not a concern? There is a HUGE tide of human resistance against the Drug War. THAT is why it has failed. Not due to bungling by the UN.

Hadrian999

keep on wetting yourself over the UN, I’ve been around to long, i have been hearing about how UN were gonna fly in in their black helicopters and throw all white americans into camps for over 20 years now, I’m more terrified of the prospect of accidentally watching coverage of the Kardasians than I am of some paranoid plot that sounds like a bad 80’s flick. Say hi to Jim Marrs and alex jones for me

just to help out with the facts, the Drug War that is executed around the world is 100% at the behest of the good ol’ USofA. There was no drug war before amerikkka’s drug war – and no one else has held one since.

I think it’s your (laughably) “Conservative” masters that have grand plans for you [of course, i should point out that in my book, the neo-cons are just as “conservative” as the neo-libs].

I mean, it’s not as though the US directs the UN with an unchallenged invasion into another country – er, 3, er, 20+ since 1980, or that the Bolivians want to be restricted to selling their plants exclusively to Coca-Cola [which is, of course, certainly not an american company], or the Colombians really give a shit what their country people grow, or how there is no drug war in Afghanistan, just a regular war.

Yeah – you might be right, it’s definitely the UN and not the regional terrors that are the Kochs, Palmisanos, the captains of industry.

UselessJunk

> Yeah – you might be right, it’s definitely the UN and not the regional
terrors that are the Kochs, Palmisanos, the captains of industry.

Because there are bigger culprits, this lets the UN off the hook?

sonicbphuct

i guess you missed the point. I’ll make it easier:
Amerikkka == UN.

truth hurts

research AGENDA 21. it’s very real, and it dictates most everything we do in every aspect of our lives. (and it’s already in place in many countries around the world, including the US. every county sheriff has signed on to this, as had most every governor in America.) i don’t care for the tea party at all, but in this case they’re actually right. too bad they waited this long to bring it up. please look it up for yourself. it’s very long and boring reading, so those of you with short attention spans (most of you) will have trouble understanding it. but if you do read it, you will see. the U.N. is a privately funded “governing body” that has been set up ABOVE countries and their governments. they are the precursor to full blown world government. they’re the ones pushing carbon taxes, most wars, trade sanctions, etc., etc., etc… by the way UN means ONE… and an “army of one” means the military works for the U.N. and they have for quite a while now…

http://twitter.com/DanielReasor Daniel Reasor

Since you’re one of the ones making the claim that environmental protection is a gateway to the FEMA camps, maybe you can help your attention span challenged peers* by citing the parts of the program that you think are dangerous. I’ll make it easy. The full text of the resolution can be found here: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

*that’s why you posted, right? To help get the word out? It must be urgent, so get cracking!

JohnFrancisBittrich

Here’s the thing about NWO conspiracy types: Pretty much everything the NWO supposedly stands for (an end to Judaeo-Christian moral posturing, strict limits on population growth, the “cult of reason” etc) are actually… um… totally okay with me. Soooo… there’s that.

RightLeftWheel

Until YOU are part of the population they want to control. Then you wont be singing the same song. Your ignorance is staggering.

Awesome, finally people and groups are starting to wake up to the fact that a lot of the “green” solutions and innovations are actually designed to control us and strip us of our individual rights down the line. The UN is a huge player in this. I’m glad this scam is getting recognition. If they really wanted to help the people, they would advocate non-consuming energies and advancements that are decentralized. So the individual can be self-dependent and not dependent on a centralized power structure or system. They would also give contracts for building our roads and city systems to local businesses and not foreign ones.

Everyday more and more people are waking up to these scams

Butter Knife

Maybe I’m just an idiot… but could you explain how, exactly, bike lanes and high-speed trains make myself or anyone else less free in any meaningful (ie. non-hypothetical, non-trivial, non-spurious logic) way?

Because, correct me if I’m wrong here, improving the viability of travel by bicycle and upgrading the speed, capacity and efficiency of rail networks looks, at first glance, to provide a greater number and quality of choices available to me when I wish to travel between any two points in space. Is there something inherently more free about having no good choice for traveling by land other than automobiles? Again, I may be an idiot, but doesn’t the very definition of “freedom” hinge on being able to choose what one does? If one has fewer real choices to make, doesn’t that make them literally less free? If you would demand that I have fewer choices, I certainly have trouble believing that you do so in order to protect my freedoms. At the very least, I should expect you to make a clear and compelling case.

TruthersSoSmart

Those were just lumped in to make the real concerns look foolish. Smart meters and such are the threat, not bike lanes.

Reclamation cause

My thoughts exactly. They NYT tries to play the minds of their readers this way.

Mr Willow

Then why have the groups been denouncing bike lanes?

Reclamation cause

I wonder the same thing.. Unless, like I said, the contracts are being given to foreign companies or corporations instead of local ones. That’s the only logical conclusion I can come up with.. If they are legitimately protesting bike lanes because of bike lanes they need to slapped. 😉

Reclamation cause

Your not an idiot, you just misinterpreted what I said. Bike lanes and high-speed trains are not the problem, (lol) it’s who controls them that is. Maybe the delivery of my message was flawed…

Anti-Amereichan

You’re not an idiot. I don’t know you and cannot form a judgement. What I assume is that you’re just one of the millions of perfectly educated and intelligent people who have been intentionally confused and lied to about the source of such things as public transit, bike lanes, and even roads themselves.

All of these conveniences when spawned from the “public”, or more appropriate, government sector, are funded by taxes. These taxes are taken from everyday citizens such as you and I under the threat of force. If we refuse to pay these taxes, we face the eventuality of losing our homes, jobs, and families and being placed into prison cages or worse. This is theft — Using violence to acquire the property of another. By outlawing these practices amongst the citizenry while engaging in them itself, government controls a monopoly on theft and violence.

These stolen funds are then appropriated and distributed to pay for specific projects deemed by our overseers to be in the best interest of the “public good”, an entirely arbitrary phantom designed for control. You see, there can be no “public good”, because every person has individual desires, and a “good” for one will always assuredly clash with a “good” for another. These “necessary” projects include all manner of “public goods”, such as war, prisons, internment camps, propping up foreign dictators, big business bailouts, welfare, brainwashing facilities (public education), and yes, even things like public transit and bike lanes.

You ask about freedom. How are you less free when given these options? It’s because you’re confused. You look at the equation and see “2+2=5”. Delve a little deeper and use some deductive reasoning. You’re actually given less options.

#1. You cannot choose the most important option, the ability to “opt-out” of the system. You are forced to pay taxes, and YOUR money WILL be spent on them whether you want it to be or not. You take a high-speed train, you’re still paying for the bike lanes. You ride a bike, you’re still paying for the train. You walk everywhere, you’re stuck paying for both. You have no freedom to choose how your money is spent.

#2. A government option destroys real options. If a large number of people desire a high-speed train and are willing to pay for the convenience, it will be built by a private business. It will be constructed and maintained with money not stolen by the people (making it a virtual moneyhole that further expounds the deficit) but with private capital. If it is highly successful, other companies will provide their own services by entering the market and providing you with even more alternatives. However, when government is involved, it forces out all potential competition by driving prices down to artificially low unsustainable levels because it acquires funding through the theft of the populace rather than honest business and can spend as much as it desires. Furthermore, the quality of the product greatly suffers, as government is inherently incompetent at managing resources. (See: the DMV) This same principle is responsible for the failings of almost every industry in this country. Healthcare, education, welfare, law enforcement, everything. Government health insurance drives up the costs of hospital visits because hospitals can charge whatever they want. The same goes for colleges and student aid. Government welfare puts an exponential amount of private charities out of business.

I know it’s difficult to understand at first. But open your mind and ask real questions. Do real research. This is just common sense and history. Learn and expand your thoughts. Listen to everything but believe nothing without personal research. Your very freedom is at stake (it’s mostly gone), and you’ve been conditioned to accept slavery as freedom. Abandon your ego and realize that most of what you believe has been implanted inside of you, then make the effort to expunge it and fill the void with original thought.

Read.

Mr Willow

What idiotic dreck.

Money, first of all, is the illusionary perception of value placed upon things, currency being created when all people collectively delude themselves into believing any one form or object represents value. In the past, it was nuts or beans or seeds. This made sense because these things could be planted to bring sustenance to humankind. It was literally valuable. Along the way, however, a person or group of people wished to control such a system, as they saw it could used as a method of exploitation, a method of control, a means of manipulating the people who use such a system. These people were, most likely, indolent, slothful, self-aggrandising individuals, either inherently so, or told by their elders that they had the ‘privilege’ bestowed by their blood, or God, or any other number of reasons. The sorts that think of themselves as too important, too fair, too proud to work, they figured that if they could pay others to do their work for them, then all would be right with the world.

To do this, they had to select something that was finite, because organic currencies could be sustained indefinitely by the people using it, as they were all living in agrarian-based societies. Their money was literally growing on trees. Thus, one person could not leverage another on a basis of a lack of money. Even a completely and abjectly poor person could venture out into the wilderness and procure funds directly from the Earth, for that was from where all wealth sprang. Of course, in such societies, everyone understood that their survival depended upon the entire group, that noöne was an island. It wasn’t one person trying to do everything, it was each member doing one part, making the entire structure stable by providing not only the supports (such as farming or shelter) but also the scaffolding and latticework (things like clothing, tools, weapons, art, music, poetry, etc.). All societies require all of this to survive—without food and shelter, you die of hunger or exposure to the elements, and without all the things we think of as amenities, we die of insanity and boredom—yet it was understood that not everyone could provide all of these things for themselves—they couldn’t farm, build, weave, smith, write, and compose each individually, making them entirely self-reliant—so it was determined that to accommodate the collective needs of everyone, because we all have the same basic needs, a few members would specialise in one aspect of it. This is how we have architects and masons and clothes-makers and blacksmiths and artists and entertainers. Most of this is made to the betterment of our existences, to make us more comfortable, and to be honest, most of the amenities we associate with modern life are mere comforts. Even things like procuring food for ourselves has become an exercise in making us more comfortable. Comfort breeds complacency, so we are less likely to either look around to see the horrors being committed around us, or to take a stand against them, lest we lose our comforts. But I digress. . .

In order to make money finite, so as to ensure they could control the flow of it, they selected some shiny rocks—gold and silver, jewels, etc. I can’t imagine the conversation between them and the rest of the community, coaxing them into believing a rock to be more valuable on any level than the literal fruit of their labour, but one way or another they succeeded in changing perception to accept the illusion that the shiny rocks have value. In so doing, they lead the people to the place where they first found the pretty stones. The people, I imagine, began to pick up the stones, put them in their pockets, when they are halted by the great deceiver, who claimed they had no right to the property he claimed by stumbling upon it, by finding it; but, if the people were to help move the rocks into the town, and not only that but dig for more, then the one who claimed them in the first place would give some of his property to those who worked for him. But always, the person who claimed the property would keep more of it for himself, so that he could then simply purchase the smith to make him silverware, the seamstress to make him garb, purchase farmhands to till his fields. Thus, he becomes a king over a lie.

After a while, he purchases the town, and the land over which the town sits, and the land surrounding the town. That is then his land, his businesses. All work to glorify him, so that they may continue to gain more of the king’s shiny rocks, which they have been informed are more valuable than seeds. If you wanted some of the land, it was granted to you by the king, for deeds that furthered the kingdom’s goals, usually consisting of being more glorious than the surrounding kingdom’s, which all were created because the roads made between towns of the past—before the introduction of the shiny rocks, when the roads were simply a necessity of trade, because with trade of goods comes also trade of ideas concerning alternate forms of making goods, alternate ways of approaching architecture, alternate forms of entertainment—carried not only clothing and food between towns, but also ideas and thoughts, including the false belief that the shiny rocks are valuable. And yet, to do something to disgrace the kingdom, dependent entirely upon the opinion of the king, was to risk the taking away of your land.

If ever there came the cries of woe from his subjects the king would send his soldiers, to quell criticism, to end talk of equality, to stifle conspiracies meant to return the town to a time before the shiny rocks—when all people worked not only just for themselves, or just for the king, but for the good of all, to do their part in making society function, because either they enjoyed their place or because their place was organically necessary (as apposed to artificially necessary to the upkeep of the kingdom because the king has ordered it, and if orders are not followed, they are imprisoned or executed)—because the king knows that if society were brought back to that time, it would mean that his ego would no longer be placed upon the artificial pedestal he created for it, through his lies of shiny rocks. He would be just another individual, special in his own particular way—no person is just some faceless cog in a machine constructed by someone else—but no greater than the next person. And worse, he would not get his orchestrated praise, he would be vilified, or resented, because he was the lazy one, the one who didn’t want to work, even work that brought about a result he liked, he wanted to pay others to work. He wanted the result only.

Eventually, however, the subjects, the peasants, the public grew inflamed with anger, as they realised that they were no longer people labouring upon something fulfilling to themselves, and sustainable to society, something that fed, clothed, and entertained everyone equally, but mindless, ignorant (because only land owners were able to be educated, as the rest of society spent all their time working to sustaining the kingdom) pack animals, glorifying a civilisation that is anything but glorious, as all the glory goes to the king. The peasants only receive enough to sustain them, to make certain they can continue to labour. They recall that the land is common property, that men did not construct the mountains or the plains, did not carve the rivers, or supply the forests, and that all the various things they posses—clothes and houses and roads and machines—were all collectively constructed by a body of individuals, so that no one person could ever rightly claim a thing, especially not businesses, which are all managed by the people involved in them, to be owned.

With their outrage, and their revelation that civilisation is, indeed, a collective effort, as all is made by a group, they dethrone their king, and instate a government composed of the public, in an attempt to reconcile the way the distant past with the new method of doing things. They hold things such as equality and coöperation as virtuous, selfishness as contemptible, and attempt to treat the whole of society fairly. In that spirit, they ask of the common needs of individuals.

Taxation is, instead of the method by which the king enriches himself, is a method by which the public government could make things that serve the commons (roads and bridges, healthcare, education [because it is no longer a privilege], electricity).

Yet, when the king was ousted, a new aristocracy arose, those that claimed to own the businesses. Work isn’t something to be owned. It is something that exists because it is necessary, because without it you die (planting crops, water purification, building houses, etc.) or because it is enjoyable (books, games, shoes, etc.), thus, work, and the place where work is done—a place of business—is, like society, is a collective effort, is owned by the people involved in its methods, not the people providing the direction, who then claim most of the wealth created by the labour, without labouring themselves.

This new aristocracy saw the past king, and although they hated rule under him, they all are selfish, like him, so they all want his old position of prestige, of privilege, of influence and power. They wish for a government for themselves, a kingdom for themselves. They despise the equality, because it limits their power, it restricts them from ascending to their own throne. In order to achieve a throne, it requires the subjugation of the public, tipping the balance of equality to favouring their own authority, creating a new peasantry.

You welcome a new peasantry through your advocation of an emphasis on private property and private ownership. Private entities owning everything will usher in a new feudal era, where our taxes do not go toward public endeavours but instead to tolls and fines and subscriptions to the private enterprises who direct labourers to put into place infrastructure they know the public cannot live without and cannot avoid. The banks or corporations will own your house, the land your house sits upon, the electricity flowing to your house, the road in front of your house, and your connection to the outside world through telephone lines, television connections, and internet access—being potentially subject to heavy censorship, constant monitorisation, and providing us false information driving the fabricated narrative that you are happy, even though you are monitored every second of the day and have to charge a credit card before your toilet seat is unlocked and able to be raised, same with shower, same with garage door—all of which you need to communicate your needs or wants to the private government, hoping they will see fit to grant it to you.

Of course, you could be hoping to be among the aristocracy yourself, and as such be the one censoring our news-feeds and charging us for hourly television subscriptions to only the shows we choose, among those manufactured by you. In which case, you should expect, at any moment, your world to crumble, for the peasants shall rise again.

Anti-Amereichan

You’re obviously well educated. Sadly, that means you’re probably often
wrong, as you are now. You mention my “idiotic dreck”. I used to have
similar disdain for carbon-copied Socialists like you and their outdated
and redundantly invalidated platitudes. However, through my years and
acquired wisdom, my contempt for lunacy has been replaced with pity. It
isn’t your fault. The indoctrination you’ve been subjected to has
destroyed your propensity for dialectical reasoning and transformed you
into nothing more than a sponge for the class that rules you. Therefore,
I know that nothing I say to you will be read with an open mind and
fairly judged. In light of this fact, my response will be short as
possible, for these issues are simple, easily understood, and unworthy
of the dramatic exposition you’ve awarded them.

“Money, first of all, is the illusionary perception of value placed upon
things, currency being created when all people collectively delude
themselves into believing any one form or object represents value.”

This is nothing more than a quasi-religious belief based on Socialist
dogma and ignorance of basic economics. Money is quite real, I assure
you. Not only is it real, is is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It
isn’t some devious machination of evil “controllers”, as you seem to
think. Money is merely a means of exchange or trade. For instance,
imagine that I am a hunter and you are a vegetable farmer. Rather than
both of us hunting and farming to provide our families with food, we
find that it’s much simpler and less time consuming to focus on our
favorite skills and trade with each other. My meat for your produce.
Now, let us consider a third party, the manufacturer of farming
equipment. He sees that you are struggling to not only farm your land
but also create the tools necessary to do so. He then capitalizes on
this by creating the tools you desire. Now you may focus on your farming
and he on manufacturing farming supplies, both of you exchanging what
you produce with each other. However, now imagine that the tool builder
desires meat. He could obviously hunt for himself, but it would be
easier to procure meat from me, the resident hunter. However, I have no
use for his farming tools, and we in effect, lack a medium of exchange
or “money”. The best and historical mediums for exchange are rare
metals, for they are finite, tangible, and insusceptible to inflationary
practices. Enter the fourth party: the gold miner. He sees an
opportunity amidst the vacuum of a monetary standard and strikes a deal
with the tool builder. In exchange for mining tools I will give you
gold, with that gold you may trade for meat, and the hunter may trade
his gold for something else he might require.

This is how money works. It isn’t some illusory specter. It has existed
this way since human beings have had desires. Even Native American
tribes had property, or territories, and freely exchanged in trade with
neighboring tribes using precious beads and rare stones as a means of
exchange. So you see, it isn’t the money that has value. It is what the
money can buy. Simple, eh?

Money in and of itself is a bastion of freedom. A conduit for unlimited
prosperity. Regardless of my reverence toward self-sufficiency, isn’t it
wonderful that we don’t have to personally manufacture everything we
own? Money makes possible every convenience and piece of extraordinary
technology we enjoy today. However, you are right that it CAN BE and IS
used as a device for control. That happens when the power over money is
stripped away from the individual and regulated by a governing body. For
instance, the dollar was originally created as a reciept for 1/20 of an
ounce of gold. A dollar could not be printed without the gold to back
it up. All of this changed in 1913 when bankers took control of America
with the illegal creation of the Federal Reserve, an independent central
bank. The dollar became the Federal Reserve Note, transforming a once
viable and tangible currency into meaningless paper. They began a
campaign of mindless bill-printing that occurs to this day. As the final
nail in the coffin, Nixon officially suspended the Gold Standard in
1971, outlawing the use of gold as a currency. In effect, the purchasing
power of the dollar has depreciated by 95.57% since 1913. It is the
reason for the unavoidable economic depression looming upon the horizon
and the oppressive poverty that surrounds us. By creating money out of
thin air to pad the coffers of our overlords, the rest of us become that
much poorer. This is all the doing of our government, mind you, so I
advise you to reconsider who you believe the true enemy is.

You speak of serfdom. The money is not to blame for kings. It is the
willingness of people to exert violence against each other in exchange
for it. That is why the founders of the United States created the
Constitution; to escape the rule of “kings”. The Constitution created a
small, Republican government concerned with the preservation and
protection of individual liberty (while forbidding the “public goods”
you crave, for the Founders knew that they would only be tools for
control). It created unparalleled prosperity for a long period before
being squashed by the corporations who bought out our government in the
early 20th century. We’ve been sold out by our own government, and our
only recourse is to refer to the second paragraph of the Declaration of
Independence. Your denial of the inherent importance of private property
to the preservation of freedom is a delusion and a disgrace.

Learn some economics. Learn some history. Then get back to me.

Mr Willow

Money is merely a means of exchange or trade. For instance, imagine that I am a hunter and you are a vegetable farmer. . .

The method of commerce you describe is simple trade agreements, based upon complementary skills mutually aiding one another. It has nothing to do with currency of any sort. The person making farming equipment would be a metalworker, in such a situation, meaning he would be a blacksmith, meaning he could manufacture arrows and knives for the hunter to trade for meat.

Why is the gold miner needed? Gold provides you with nothing but a lustrous paperweight, or a means of prettying up an object.

Even Native American tribes had property, or territories, and freely exchanged in trade with neighboring tribes using precious beads and rare stones as a means of exchange.

Yes, they traded seeds, berries, arrows, and meat. They used beads and stones for decoration, which is all Aztecs used their gold for. When Columbus and Cortez came looking for loot, their scribes noted that gold was often found simply sitting at the bottom of rivers. They didn’t even have to pan for it. It’s the whole reason there was still so much of it for all the various ‘gold rushes’ that occurred after the establishment of the United States: the indigenous people had no use for it, they assigned no value to it beyond decoration.

And Native Americans practiced communal land ownership, they did not believe in the system of landed property. The Earth is the common property of all.

Money in and of itself is a bastion of freedom. A conduit for unlimited prosperity.

Only for the people who already have it. If you don’t have any, you have to sell yourself into servitude to acquire some. And anymore, you are forced into debt, working more than one job in an increasing number of cases; forced to give your time and energy to people you don’t like, doing something you hate, just to keep from dying, because the cost of living has been steadily increasing (housing, utilities, education [necessary for a ‘good job’], healthcare), while the amount received for labour has either stagnated or fallen. That is how wage slavery works.

I know economics, sir, and I know history.

Jin The Ninja

i have heard people make the same arguement about indigenous peoples before, and in all honesty a 6th grader doing state/province history month knows better.

native peoples held steward over the land, when they signed treaties it meant, yes- you can live here AS WELL. mother earth was an inherent part of indigenous spirituality and in that worldview, her “rights” are equally if not more important than the tribe’s. i have no idea where the mis-conception comes from…!~?

Anti-Amereichan

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

“The method of commerce you describe
is simple trade agreements, based upon complementary skills mutually
aiding one another.”

Exactly. Trade agreements are the
foundation of the preservation of freedom in wider society. They
allow us to exchange our private properties with one another in order
to increase our personal standard of living. Money facilitates trade
between those who would otherwise be without a means for it. For
instance, I want a pair of shoes. Rather than spend the time to make
them for myself, I would rather go to a professional shoemaker. The
problem is that I produce no desirable goods to trade for them.
However, I do possess the skills of carpentry, so I trade my services
with a construction firm in exchange for a medium with which to
trade, or a money. (You see, employment is only a trade agreement. A
person trades his or her skills and services to an employer in
exchange for a currency.) Now that I have a means of exchange, I can
purchase the shoes I desire, and the shoemaker puts the money toward
his vacation fund. (Something that likewise could not be traded for
shoes.)“Why is the gold miner needed? Gold provides you
with nothing but a lustrous paperweight, or a means of prettying up
an object.”

The gold miner in my example is merely
providing a stable currency to advance the economy of my theoretical
small community. If he were trying to use leaves from a tree (as our
government does), he would be a con man. However, by using his skills
as a miner to extract a finite, tangible resource from the planet, he
becomes a valuable resource to the community, providing the necessary
tools for peaceful commerce.“Yes, they [Native Americans]
traded seeds, berries, arrows, and meat.”

Exactly. Those were all used as money,
as well as gemstones and other rarities. The most well-known Native
American money was wampum, or clam-shell beads. When colonists
arrived to the mainland, some of them even began to use wampum as a
currency. However, once wampum became overly abundant due to open sea
harvesting it died out due to inflation (as the dollar is about to do
because of endless, unbacked monetization).

“They used beads and stones for
decoration, which is all Aztecs used their gold for.”

Aztecs didn’t use gold for money
because they believed it to be too abundant. Aztecs used Cacao beans
as their main form of currency, as they were considered scarce and
precious. They also used jewelry as currency, among many other items.
Sadly, the Aztecs were unaware of the true scarcity of gold and their
fortunately (or unfortunately, considering history) rare access to
it. Had they discovered what Europeans had found out many centuries
before, that gold and silver are the most stable and useful
currencies on the planet, the history of the Aztecs might have
unfolded quite differently.

That’s the great thing about money. You
can use anything. That is why unregulated money is a symbol of
freedom. That is why our government has outlawed any form of tender
than their useless paper notes. Fiat currency is a tool of
totalitarianism. When control of money is unregulated in the hands of
the people, the insane level of affluence that modern bankers and
corporations enjoy and exploit is impossible to obtain. When devious
overlords control money, the special interests that control the
controllers become incredibly powerful, backed by the shadow of
phantom wealth.“And Native Americans practiced communal
land ownership, they did not believe in the system of landed
property. The Earth is the common property of all.”

Actually, that is a myth. The source of
which is a supposed speech given by Chief Seattle which includes the
following: “All things are connected. Whatever befalls the
earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man does not weave the web of
life; he is merely a strand of it. Whatever he does to the web, he
does to himself.” The
words of Chief Seattle have been carried as a badge of conviction by
environmentalists ever since they were spoken. The problem is that
Chief Seattle never said any of it. It was written by a scriptwriter
named Ted Perry in a movie about pollution. Perry spent the rest of
his life trying to convince the world that he wrote it.

Native Americans were staunch believers
of property rights. Tribes rigidly sanctioned and defended territory.
Families owned agricultural partitions. Trade agreements over the
rights of fishing areas were arranged among different tribes. Hunters
even marked their arrows so that the game they killed could be
reserved for their own families.

Resist the propaganda. Private property
rights are necessary for freedom. A man is entitled to the land he
conforms to his will. Don’t subscribe to the platitude which states
that “the earth is common property of all”. Properly translated,
this means, “A ruling class must be created to insure that the
earth is property of all, therefore the earth is property of the
state, and you simple confused peasants, having not the faculties to
take care of yourselves or the planet, must relinquish all rights of
person and property to us, your humble caretakers.” Freedom cannot
exist without the rights to property, because property is what makes
us sovereign. Without it, we must conform to the will of others just
as the serfs in your story of monarchical oppression.“That
is how wage slavery works.”

I completely agree with your
conclusion, but you are mistaking money as the impetus. It is not
money that creates depression, poverty, debt, and wage slavery; it is
the flawed system manufactured by the power elite. Since the
beginning of he twentieth century with the advent of the Industrial
Revolution to today’s useless service-based economy, we have been
brainwashed into accepting slavery. The public education system
itself was designed by industrialists and progressives to
indoctrinate the populace, demoralizing children and stripping them
of their natural occurring genius by replacing it with the
subservience of a mass-produced worker class. Before public
education, we were more literate and more prosperous. America was a
land of unprecedented economic standing among nations. Every other
country was scratching its head trying to figure out how we did it.
Small government, no income tax, strict property rights, a gold
standard, community-based education, non-tangling alliances, freedom.
These are only a few of the reasons why we exceeded. Now we have lost
all of those things and look at the national deficit. The American
Empire is over. But don’t worry, the bankers have it all covered.
After all, they engineered it for a reason.“I know
economics, sir, and I know history.”

Go deeper. Please. Just do some
unbiased research. Forget everything you’ve learned. It was taught to
you for a reason. It’s time to WAKE UP. We agree on so much. You are
right about the destination, but confused about the start. You are
right about the effect, but confused about the cause. We need people
like you. Our freedom is becoming mythological. Reject ignorance.

Anti-Amereichan

Sorry, copied from Open Office and the source was scrambled. Here’s the previous reply in a readable condition:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

“The method of commerce you describe
is simple trade agreements, based upon complementary skills mutually
aiding one another.”

Exactly. Trade agreements are the
foundation of the preservation of freedom in wider society. They
allow us to exchange our private properties with one another in order
to increase our personal standard of living. Money facilitates trade
between those who would otherwise be without a means for it. For
instance, I want a pair of shoes. Rather than spend the time to make
them for myself, I would rather go to a professional shoemaker. The
problem is that I produce no desirable goods to trade for them.
However, I do possess the skills of carpentry, so I trade my services
with a construction firm in exchange for a medium with which to
trade, or a money. (You see, employment is only a trade agreement. A
person trades his or her skills and services to an employer in
exchange for a currency.) Now that I have a means of exchange, I can
purchase the shoes I desire, and the shoemaker puts the money toward
his vacation fund. (Something that likewise could not be traded for
shoes.)

“Why is the gold miner needed? Gold provides you
with nothing but a lustrous paperweight, or a means of prettying up
an object.”

The gold miner in my example is merely
providing a stable currency to advance the economy of my theoretical
small community. If he were trying to use leaves from a tree (as our
government does), he would be a con man. However, by using his skills
as a miner to extract a finite, tangible resource from the planet, he
becomes a valuable resource to the community, providing the necessary
tools for peaceful commerce.

Exactly. Those were all used as money,
as well as gemstones and other rarities. The most well-known Native
American money was wampum, or clam-shell beads. When colonists
arrived to the mainland, some of them even began to use wampum as a
currency. However, once wampum became overly abundant due to open sea
harvesting it died out due to inflation (as the dollar is about to do
because of endless, unbacked monetization).

“They used beads and stones for
decoration, which is all Aztecs used their gold for.”

Aztecs didn’t use gold for money
because they believed it to be too abundant. Aztecs used Cacao beans
as their main form of currency, as they were considered scarce and
precious. They also used jewelry as currency, among many other items.
Sadly, the Aztecs were unaware of the true scarcity of gold and their
fortunately (or unfortunately, considering history) rare access to
it. Had they discovered what Europeans had found out many centuries
before, that gold and silver are the most stable and useful
currencies on the planet, the history of the Aztecs might have
unfolded quite differently.

That’s the great thing about money. You
can use anything. That is why unregulated money is a symbol of
freedom. That is why our government has outlawed any form of tender
than their useless paper notes. Fiat currency is a tool of
totalitarianism. When control of money is unregulated in the hands of
the people, the insane level of affluence that modern bankers and
corporations enjoy and exploit is impossible to obtain. When devious
overlords control money, the special interests that control the
controllers become incredibly powerful, backed by the shadow of
phantom wealth.

“And Native Americans practiced communal
land ownership, they did not believe in the system of landed
property. The Earth is the common property of all.”

Actually, that is a myth. The source of
which is a supposed speech given by Chief Seattle which includes the
following: “All things are connected. Whatever befalls the
earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man does not weave the web of
life; he is merely a strand of it. Whatever he does to the web, he
does to himself.” The
words of Chief Seattle have been carried as a badge of conviction by
environmentalists ever since they were spoken. The problem is that
Chief Seattle never said any of it. It was written by a scriptwriter
named Ted Perry in a movie about pollution. Perry spent the rest of
his life trying to convince the world that he wrote it.

Native Americans were staunch believers
of property rights. Tribes rigidly sanctioned and defended territory.
Families owned agricultural partitions. Trade agreements over the
rights of fishing areas were arranged among different tribes. Hunters
even marked their arrows so that the game they killed could be
reserved for their own families.

Resist the propaganda. Private property
rights are necessary for freedom. A man is entitled to the land he
conforms to his will. Don’t subscribe to the platitude which states
that “the earth is common property of all”. Properly translated,
this means, “A ruling class must be created to insure that the
earth is property of all, therefore the earth is property of the
state, and you simple confused peasants, having not the faculties to
take care of yourselves or the planet, must relinquish all rights of
person and property to us, your humble caretakers.” Freedom cannot
exist without the rights to property, because property is what makes
us sovereign. Without it, we must conform to the will of others just
as the serfs in your story of monarchical oppression.

“That
is how wage slavery works.”

I completely agree with your
conclusion, but you are mistaking money as the impetus. It is not
money that creates depression, poverty, debt, and wage slavery; it is
the flawed system manufactured by the power elite. Since the
beginning of he twentieth century with the advent of the Industrial
Revolution to today’s useless service-based economy, we have been
brainwashed into accepting slavery. The public education system
itself was designed by industrialists and progressives to
indoctrinate the populace, demoralizing children and stripping them
of their natural occurring genius by replacing it with the
subservience of a mass-produced worker class. Before public
education, we were more literate and more prosperous. America was a
land of unprecedented economic standing among nations. Every other
country was scratching its head trying to figure out how we did it.
Small government, no income tax, strict property rights, a gold
standard, community-based education, non-tangling alliances, freedom.
These are only a few of the reasons why we exceeded. Now we have lost
all of those things and look at the national deficit. The American
Empire is over. But don’t worry, the bankers have it all covered.
After all, they engineered it for a reason.

“I know
economics, sir, and I know history.”

Go deeper. Please. Just do some
unbiased research. Forget everything you’ve learned. It was taught to
you for a reason. It’s time to WAKE UP. We agree on so much. You are
right about the destination, but confused about the start. You are
right about the effect, but confused about the cause. We need people
like you. Our freedom is becoming mythological. Reject ignorance.

Mr Willow

Alright, look.

I am fairly certain we are not going to come to an understanding, or an agreement, because you are confused about, or are misunderstanding, where I’m coming from—in that, I recognise that money is a human construct, not an inherent principle of relations (it is a fiction we created) and see property (meaning land and business) as something that is claimed by man out of the will to assert dominance over Nature and fellow humans.

A completely free society necessitates equality, otherwise there will be authorities dictating their wills to subordinates. Ergo, all means by which humans interact, I feel, should be publicly owned. A system in which one person ‘owns’ any given situation places that person in a position of dominance over another, which is tyranny. In today’s economic system, it is the person writing the checks—the owners of ‘property’ in the form of business—to whom those who labour to receive their checks (or even before, when they received gold and silver coins) are forced to suffer all manner of hardship, without complaint, under threat of expulsion from the endeavour, indirectly killing him as money is necessary to his survival.

Another thing is that you mistakenly consider my disposition attributable to the education I received, which is ridiculous (though I wouldn’t expect you to know that) because not only did I endure strict, conservative, evangelical, private schooling—no ‘progressive/socialist’ curriculum for me—I formed my opinion of these matters through personal study and exploration of them after I had graduated. (which, incidentally, served to completely reverse the biases that had been conditioned into me by my education)

I am not ignorant.

Anti-Amereichan

“I am fairly certain we are not going to come to an understanding, or an agreement…”

It seems that way, doesn’t it?

“…because you are confused about, or are misunderstanding, where I’m coming from…”

No. I’m not misunderstanding anything. An incredible amount of people out there hold the same beliefs as you. It is mainstream and popular to reject the concept of personal responsibility in favor of a life of submissive dependence. It is a childhood trait that is rarely broken. I’ve had this conversation before. I’m not disagreeing with you because I’m confused; I’m disagreeing with you because you’re wrong. I don’t expect you to change your mind right now. It is a process. Once the truth has been properly explained to you, it will ferment for many years, and if you’re lucky, you’ll one day understand. It’s incredibly difficult for a person to accept that their core beliefs are incorrect. It is a massive blow to one’s ego. Trust me. I’ve been through it. But rather than ignoring the truth, I used the opportunities to adapt and grow as an enlightened individual.

“I recognise that money is a human construct, not an inherent principle of relations (it is a fiction we created)…”

I’ve tried to explain this clearly. You are repeating tired propaganda. Money is not a “fiction”. It is entirely necessary in the expanded society of which we are a part. In the society of the secular tribe, it is unnecessary, for life is simple. Luxuries do not exist, and all necessities can be shared. However, once you move beyond the boundaries of the insulated society to the realm of larger societies (larger than 100-150 people) that trade and interact with each other, a medium of exchange is not only necessary, it is naturally created by the market. And for a society’s economy to become prosperous enough so that people may expand their desires beyond their basic needs, money’s existence creates a most important concept: profit incentive. Profit incentive allows us to enjoy all of the wonderful luxuries we use every day. Look at my words. What are you actually looking at? A computer screen. This is something that would not and could not exist without money and profit. Profit drives creativity and expansion and without it, there would be no technology or industry. It is impossible for government to provide these things because government makes no profit and therefore has no incentive to progress and change for the better! (because it has no competition) Furthermore, the money of government is derived from taxes, stolen from the PROFITS of its citizens, which would not exist themselves without MONEY. In the absence of money, we would all be living in the forest now, picking berries, wearing animal skins, and praying for our next meal. Maybe that’s what you believe is truly righteous? That’s fine. But you aren’t doing it. That makes you a hypocrite. You feed off of the creativity, ambition, and usefulness of other people while calling them criminals when they’d rather not share their earned wealth with you. It isn’t some higher morality that compels your beliefs, it is envy and greed.

“…and see property (meaning land and business) as something that is
claimed by man out of the will to assert dominance over Nature and
fellow humans.”

Wrong again. Property is absolutely and irrefutably necessary for survival. Let’s go back to the small tribal village. Their village is located on their territory or property, because it is the land they have conformed to their will in order to survive. They have built shelter, designated areas for cooking, and possibly even planted simple crops. Now imagine that a different tribe arrives from across some expanse and finds the village. Under your false beliefs, everything is the property of all. Do they then have the right to ransack the village? Take food, water, and tools? Set the primitive shelters on fire because it sounds like fun? You think yes. The original villagers will disagree. They will fight back and defend THEIR land and property, because possessing that property is crucial to their existence. Without property rights, there can be no freedom. It is Natural Law. It is reality.

“A completely free society necessitates equality, otherwise there will be authorities dictating their wills to subordinates.”

Absolutely correct. Equality = The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. property).

“Ergo, all means by which humans interact, I feel, should be publicly
owned. A system in which one person ‘owns’ any given situation places
that person in a position of dominance over another, which is tyranny.”

This is where you falter. Tyranny is the de facto ownership of one person of another. What you are proposing is just is in truth tyranny itself. Let me give you a simple but extremely important lesson that I want you to remember:

What we are discussing is who possesses the ownership of an individual. There are only three options:

1. A man owns himself.
2. A man is owned by another man.
3. Every man owns a part of each other.

Number two is a fascist theory. That the ownership of individuals should be in the hands of one or a few individuals. This theory is easily disproved once you realize that for this system to be just, the “owners” or government must be the true humans, and the “owned” or the subjects must be some sort of sub-human. Since biologically there is nothing that separates one man from another, the theory is false.

The third theory is that of Socialism and Communism. That each individual is only part of a communal ownership. On the small scale (100-150 people), this seems plausible. However, once you reach multiple hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of people, the theory begins to break down. Why? Because this system requires every human to constantly keep tabs on the doings of each other, which is physically impossible. Therefore, in larger society, a governing body must be established to keep track of the ownership of people in lieu of a comprehensive individually-based system. Because government always becomes a reflection of the governing body, and because government cannot account for the desires of all men equally (see the Russian and Chinese experiments), the third option in fact becomes the second option, a theory previously proven false.

The conclusion is that only the first option can be true. Every man and woman owns themselves. And in the process of that ownership, the land and objects they conform to their will become private property.

The problems we now face are not because of money or property. They exist because of those regulating and controlling it (the government, itself controlled by the power elite), who are destroying the intrinsic equality that true money and property provides. We have become slaves because of it. If economic power could be returned to the people, freedom and prosperity would likewise return equally to all.

“Another thing is that you mistakenly consider my disposition attributable to the education I received, which is ridiculous…”

I never said that specifically. Rather than receiving your formal schooling from liberal public school brainwashing, you received it from conservative, evangelical brainwashing. Not too much difference. In fact, I’ve found that people trained in the latter are highly apt to embrace the former as an act of rebellion, but it rarely happens the other way around. It’s very common. What you need to learn is that both are designed to control you. Research classical liberalism and conservatism. Both movements today are merely two sides to the same coin.

One of the most dastardly sources of education and brainwashing in this age comes from entertainment and media. The school you attended doesn’t interfere with the fact that you’ve faced indoctrination since you were a small child watching cartoons.

“I am not ignorant.”

It’s a Catch-22, isn’t it?

I want you to know that I’m taking all of this time to discuss these issues with you not because of an egotistical desire to be “right”, but because I truly care about and want to help you, as I do all of humanity. Until more people become aware of truth, especially those like you who possess the intelligence to inspire real change, we will all be further shackled and beaten by the system. I need you to wake up because divided, we have no hope.

Mr Willow

Profit incentive allows us to enjoy all of the wonderful luxuries we use every day.

The monopolies that are inevitably created by profit incentive—man owns company, making profit, another man who owns separate company, also making profit, either buys, or is purchased by, or creates partnership with first man in order for them both to make more profit, reducing competition in the marketplace, competition which is what is often touted as being the innovation present in a market economy—means that inevitably all profit goes to a few individuals, creating an elite, which then control the government. (see my comment relating to this here: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/crony-capitalism-and-the-history-of-bailouts/#comment-420185049 )

Profit drives creativity

The starving artist—who is not starving because of a lack of creativity but because no major private company will hire him, because all the private company cares about is profit, and they don’t want to waste time risking effort on a new idea when they can just rehash the same idea because they know that will assure profit—will laugh at that (myself included).

1. A man owns himself.
2. A man is owned by another man.
3. Every man owns a part of each other.

4. Every man owns himself, but coöperates with others to create civilisation.

Every individual is, ultimately, his own authority, yet all contribute to the function of civilisation in their own way—farmers and smiths and teachers and entertainers. Many individuals coöperate, collaborate, and contribute in their own individual way to the building and maintenance of society. Because collaboration occurs, all those involved in the collaboration collectively own the outcome.

Under your false beliefs, everything is the property of all. Do they then have the right to ransack the village? Take food, water, and tools? Set the primitive shelters on fire because it sounds like fun? You think yes.

What the blood hell are you talking about? Such a notion is horrific to me, and such actions are both juvenile and disgusting.

Under my beliefs, the arriving tribe, if it wishes to live there, should integrate and contribute to the preëxisting society, which, in return, assists them with the construction of permanent residences for them, the sharing of tools, the sharing of water and food.

Rather than receiving your formal schooling from liberal public school brainwashing, you received it from conservative, evangelical brainwashing. (that paragraph)

I like how you conveniently glossed over the second part of my statement, namely, that I already did the unbiased research after graduation, and arrived at the conclusion I have been relating to you. I did not do so out of rebellion for my childhood, that would be much too petty. I formed my own opinions of all the intricate tendrils history is composed of through personal study, reflection, and contemplation.

I want you to know that I’m taking all of this time to discuss these issues with you not because of an egotistical desire to be “right”,

And that is exactly why we cannot agree, because in fact you are, and you hide it behind condescension with the uses of words and phrases like ‘truth’ and ‘enlightened’ and ‘confused’ and ‘wake up’—as in “The truth is that you (meaning me) are confused, I (meaning you) am waking you up, because I am enlightened.”

It is a quasi-religious mindset that is fairly common amongst ‘property rights’ advocates. You consider your mind illuminated—you’ve seen the light, as it were—and see me as a babe lost in the woods. You think that it is impossible that any intelligent, rational individual could have the opinion that I do, so you chock it up to propaganda or brainwashing or societal conditioning; unable to consider other perspectives as valid because they are ‘misinformed’ or ‘confused’. On this, you are mistaken.

You also can’t put your ego aside long enough to recognise that you exist within a society constructed with the association and coöperation with others, others which also have the same basic needs as you. By claiming anything to be ‘yours’ is to deprive someöne else the use of it, which, in the case of essential means of sustenance such as food and water, will result in their direct or indirect death.

To share is to coöperate is to live within a sustainable civilisation. Those who insist upon ownership (property) are trying to build a society of hermits, which is a contradiction, and will only exist until resources begin to run out, at which point it becomes every man for himself and ‘society’ becomes a bloodsport driven by the selfish appetite to claim more for himself than the person standing next to him.

If you prefer it put in your own words (literally): I need you to wake up because divided, we have no hope.

Equality = The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. property).

See? Curious phrases such as this belie this fact. One can be perfectly happy without property. The only reason one would equate property with happiness is that it would bring that person happiness to assert his will over that property, rather than to live along-side or amid their surroundings. They can’t be happy with an apple. It has to be their apple, which means that they could eat it in front of a starving man, or destroy the apple if they wished, rather than share it. (not to imply you specifically are that cruel)

It is the same reasoning behind the bulldozing of unoccupied houses, despite a large homeless population. Rather than be compassionate, it is deemed better to be callous, because of the focus on ownership and money.

To be honest, I have said pretty much all there is to be said in regard to an argument, and I would prefer to not discuss this further. Good day.

Anti-Amereichan

I will make this short.

“…means that inevitably all profit goes to a few individuals, creating an elite, which then control the government.”

You are still putting the cart before the horse, confusing cause and effect. It is the control of government which influences the control of money, not the other way around.

“The starving artist… will laugh at that (myself included).”

I’ve been the artist, starving and homeless, and I’m not laughing.

The ambitious, creative mind succeeds on its own terms, regardless of profit. Creator-owned content is the way of the past and the future. Talent rises to the top naturally.The artist who blames the “system” does so because he is afraid to blame himself. Envy is a destroyer of men.

“4. Every man owns himself, but coöperates with others to create civilisation.”

This is merely the third option disguised in political rhetoric. Forced cooperation is not cooperation at all. It is slavery.

You missed the point.

Independence, the very core of freedom, is not the forfeiture of cooperation. By working within one’s own self interests, a man improves the society around him. Through wisdom he finds that the self interests of all are within his own. All of the good things in society are products of cooperation, the alliance of free, independent men and women. However, to attempt to manufacture a form of pseudo-cooperation controlled by violence-backed bureaucracy serves to unwind the very fabric of this delicate balance and in effect, undermines true forms of communion and teamwork.

“Under my beliefs, the
arriving tribe, if it wishes to live there, should
integrate and contribute to the preëxisting society, which, in return,
assists them with the construction of permanent residences for them, the
sharing of tools, the sharing of water and food.”

Don’t you see? You’ve backed yourself into a corner with glaring contradiction. Your beliefs are false because they deny reality and rely on the illusion of an attainable utopia. You say that the arriving tribe “should” do what you say. I agree. But WHY “should” they? Because the property is already owned by the original tribe. In reality, people can be unreasonable and wicked, and some will always try to take by force the things which others depend upon to live. Under the assumption that everything is “property of all”, they have the right to steal and destroy. To fight against it is to support the natural right of private property, which you do, even though you cannot perceive it yet.

“Curious phrases such as this belie this fact. One can be perfectly happy without property.”

Mussolini and Lenin would agree.

“Property” was the original phrase to be used in the Declaration of Independence, but it was substituted with “the pursuit of happiness” for fear that slave-owners would use it to justify the ownership of people. They mean the same thing.

I would like to see the happy man without property, powerless even over the very food he puts into his mouth to survive.

“You think that it is impossible that any intelligent, rational individual could have the opinion that I do…”

You’ve misunderstood me, for you have a false sense of the way the world works.

We aren’t talking about whether you prefer the colors orange or blue. Our beliefs on these issues are not opinions. They are either right or wrong. You are unquestionably wrong, and to me it is highly important to let you know this and explain why because the false beliefs held by you and your peers directly effect me, my family, and all of humanity. You truly think that I am fueled by ego? Wrong again. It is fear, sadness, pity, and a glimmer of hope with which I reply.

With experience, I hope you find peace. Good night.

Mr Willow

Last post from me, but. . .

It is the control of government which influences the control of money

The one who controls money will inevitably assume the role of government.

Creator-owned content is the way of the past and the future.

I agree, and if many people are involved in the creation, then they should share the ownership.

Forced cooperation is not cooperation at all.

I’m not arguing for forced coöperation, but I recognise that private enterprise can force coöperation just as much as any government can in pursuit of greater material wealth, rather than attaining a sustainable society.

Because the property is already owned by the original tribe.

No, because to burn and destroy everything achieves nothing for either the original or the arriving tribe. The only reason the arriving tribe would wish to steal the food is if they were starving and the original tribe refused to give them anything, therfore the original tribe should behave peaceably and respectably and share, inviting the new tribe to partake, if they had no shelter, to offer them shelter.

And if the arriving tribe wished to remain in the village, they would be expected to share in the labour, as they share in the harvest, and the original tribe would help them build permanent lodgings.

To presume all are wicked breeds paranoia.

You truly think that I am fueled by ego?. . .

. . . You are unquestionably wrong,. . .

. . . for you have a false sense of the way the world works.

Yeah, because that isn’t egotistical at all.

“It’s not that I’m Right, it’s that you’re Wrong.”

You can save all your condescension and pretentious drivel.

All the world is perception and interpretation, friend. It’s rather interesting that the people who claim otherwise all conveniently consider their own perception of the world to be irrevocably correct.

You cited Lenin and Mao, in an attempt to associate my beliefs with the commiters of atrocities. Well—disregarding the fact that I am a libertarian socialist (as apposed to the authoritarians who practised little more than State Capitalism)—would you like to know who else believed the world ‘exists’ in one particular, unequivocally incontrovertible manner, regardless of the opinions of others: Adolf Hitler. This can clearly be seen in his Degenerate Art show.

As for the degenerate artists, I forbid them to force their so-called experiences upon the public. If they do see fields blue, they are deranged, and should go to an asylum. If they only pretend to see them blue, they are criminals, and should go to prison. I will purge the nation of them. — Adolf Hitler

The thought was that Reality exists in one emphatic way, to which we all must conform, lest we be ‘wrong’ in perception—thus, cubism, impressionism, and surrealism, were incorrect forms of expression (they weren’t ‘opinions’ worth entertaining), because ‘the world’ doesn’t look like Picasso or Monet depicted them—when ‘the world’, in fact, is only the interpretation and/or opinion of each individual perceiving it, and only exists in any one way so long as we allow it to exist in one way or another. The world can be changed.

And I can find no peace through the pursuit of selfishness. I would sooner commit myself to the arms of Death. Sweet dreams. . .

Anti-Amereichan

“The one who controls money will inevitably assume the role
of govern
ment.”

Depends upon the initial power of govern
ment.

“I agree, and if many people are involved in the creation,
then they should share the
owners
hip.”

A free society allows people to sell their skills and services.

“…I recognise that
private enterprise can force coöperation just as much as any govern
ment can in
pursuit of greater material wealth, rather than attaining a sustainable
society.”
That is a lie. Individuals are free to choose whom with they do business. Government, on the other hand, has a monopoly of coercion.

”

To presume all are wicked breeds paranoia.”

No presume all are noble breeds naivety.

“All
the world is perception and interpretation, friend”

No. There are fundamental truths, such as the one truth that fuels my participation in this debate:
Human beings own themselves and therefore deserve to be free.

To deny such truth is to whole-heartedly embrace tyranny.

“Well—disregarding
the fact that I am a libertarian socialis…”

I’d already
assumed you were a Chomskyite. If only you could see the blatant fallacies of your oxymoronic religion. You cannot have freedom and social control
simultaneously. And you dare invoke Hitler, avowed Socialist, trunculant opponent to Capitalism, and ideological bedfellow of the jew-hating Marx, your patron saint of contradiction?

Don’t make me laugh!

You are a supporter of authoritarianism and
violence and an enemy of liberty and equality. And you can’t even comprehend it! I should be used to it by now, but this level of ignorance truly astounds me.

Mr Willow

I love how violently you react to a name without addressing the context in which I used it.

jew-hating Marx

You are aware Marx was of Semitic decent, right? His grandfather, on his mother’s side was a Rabbi.

If you are referring to his “On the Jewish Question” I disagree with his opinion (to put it mildly) the same way I disagree with the people who claim Judaism to be an ‘imperfected’ religion.

You are a supporter of authoritarianism and violence and an enemy of liberty and equality

Right, because a pacifist supporting and advocating for a horizontal power structures is just pining for dictatorship. Whatever you say. . .

Anti-Amereichan

“I love how violently you react to a name without addressing
the context in which I used it.”

Your context was flawed, and your usage ironic.

“You are aware Marx was of Semitic decent, right? His
grandfather, on his mother’s side was a Rabbi.”

It’s quite possible to be both Jewish and anti-Semitic.
Research Daniel Burros. Marx himself was vehemently anti-Semitic.

“Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the
Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the
secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his
religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need,
self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is
his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and
money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation
of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general
present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical
development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously
contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must
necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the
Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry”. –Karl Marx

“Right, because a pacifist supporting and advocating for a
horizontal power structures is just pining for dictatorship. Whatever you say.
. .”

Your very pacifism is proof of your support of dictatorship
and slavery. Pacifism is quite evil. For instance, if your mother were being
raped, would you refuse to use violent defense to aid her? If you did refuse,
you would therefore be supporting the right of one to impose violence upon
another without necessary cause (self defense). Or would you support some
solution such as contacting the “proper authorities” to deal with the brutal
rape of your mother? If so, you would be a hypocrite and a coward, admitting
that your philosophy applies to you, but not to others, therefore destroying
its credibility.

You have no idea what you believe. Maybe one day you’ll
reject the feeble-mindedness of your own ideologies. For your own sake, I hope
so.

Mr Willow

Only responding because you mentioned my mother, which was in pretty poor taste.

Pacifism is quite evil.

This from a guy who also said: “I am vehemently anti-war.” (in response to jigglyboobs below [http://disinfo.com/2012/02/anti-u-n-agenda-21-activists-gain-influence-across-u-s/#comment-430644476 ])

Pacifism, as with all philosophies, has many facets to it. The only thing all forms of pacifism have in common is the opposition to warfare. I am a supporter of non-aggression, which means I believe in self-defense and the defense of my friends and family.

Are you sure you know what you believe?

Marx himself was vehemently anti-Semitic.

And again, you disregard the second part of my statement, in which I say I disagree with Marx’s opinion (to put it mildly), the same way I disagree with the people who claim Judaism to be an ‘imperfected’ religion.

If ‘disagree’ is too tame or polite a word for you, then I reject and condemn it.

You have no idea what you believe.

And I suppose you, a stranger, know more about that than I do. Your conceited presumptions know no bounds.

Maybe one day you’ll reject the feeble-mindedness of your own ideologies.

Likewise.

Anti-Amereichan

Whatever. Copy it into a document to read it. I hate using library computers

Andrew

You lost me at “i[t] is a naturally occurring phenomenon.”

sonicbphuct

i’m afraid you’ve confused “Division of Labor” with money. If i’m a farmer and you’re a hunter, there’s no reason I can’t hunt and you can’t farm – we just opt for a division of labor, enabling specialization and various efficiencies. That has nothing to do with “money”.

I haven’t confused anything. With the division of labor, a need for a medium of exchange arises. It has quite a lot to do with money, for they are inextricably bound.

Together they make possible the modern luxuries we enjoy. Trust me, I am a full believer in the virtue of self-sufficiency, but I also like to see a good movie every now and then.

Tuna Ghost

For instance, the dollar was originally created as a reciept for 1/20 of an ounce of gold. A dollar could not be printed without the gold to back it up.

See, I’ve been hearing that a lot in the past few years, but when I looked into it I discovered that isn’t really true. Banks were continually retracting that agreement during most of the 19th century. A century, I should remind you, that saw just insane amounts of banks closing down.

Look into some of those crises, it’ll show you how fucked up our banking was back when the notion of gold-backed money was a lot more popular. This is why I’m leery of anyone telling me we should go backwards and try stuff that didn’t work a 200 years ago when we first tried.

TruthersSoSmart

I agree with Mr Willow’s very long assessment. You’ve been duped into thinking money is your God-given right. You know money is a made-up system, just like taxes? You might as well argue you have a right to taxes, makes as much sense as a right to all your financial income.

The ones who gain from rants like yours are the ones who print the $$$. They count on all of you to worship their point system so fervently; and you do, by demanding nothing more than that you are entitled to double your allowance. Check, mate, you’ve lost, they’ve won.

Anti-Amereichan

I live on an island and fish for my breakfast with a spear. You’re preaching to the choir.

You don’t believe in money, but you do believe in taxes? I sense much contradiction within you.

Andrew

I don’t believe in either.

UselessJunk

You both have a different foundation to argue from. You’re arguing from a sense of money being a grounded launching pad within which each man rises up from. As such, you think being deprived of your money is against your liberty.

The other side is that the money is a system created by other men. Thus, the rules are arbitrarily set and imposed, and the system is not necessarily of special value in regards to the freedom of other people. The rules within the system (taxes) are therefore no longer an issue of liberty, the whole system ITSELF is the issue. Add in the fact that these bankers (who can give themselves virtually limitless amounts of money) live like gods, while everyone else only hopes to rise near them (by working their way up their pyramid).

I am not arguing against “money”, just the way in which many of our Western systems operate today. While your POV is constrained to tweaking things within the system, the other POV argues for a new system. I find Americans are particularly brainwashed to believe hard work, intelligence, and deserving are attached to their monetary system, and thus losing money is a personal offense, as if by lowering their wealth you lower their very being.

sonicbphuct

i may have derided you too soon. touche.

jigglyboobs

lol. this guy hates roads and the post office. SOCIALISM!
clean water act? TYRANNY against the job creators!– you know, those guys who haven’t created a job anywhere but in china for the past 20 years..the ones who will never create another job in america if they can help it…yep, THOSE job creators… tea party vs. ows is just one more version of liberal vs. conservative. just one more battle between the loudest craziest extremes of both sides while the rational voices in the middle are drowned out by lunatic raving…in other words, YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWNN….absolutely nothing new to see here.

jigglyboobs

my head is spinning from the stupidity here.
you’re pissed because you don’t get to opt out of your taxes being used to build a fucking BIKE LANE?
but let me just guess… you LOOOOOOVE it when your taxes are used to bomb women and children with flying robots 60.000 miles away; you’d never imagine bitching about not being able to opt out of that right?
and you don’t see how that makes you a psychopath either, right?

people like you are the reason i laugh when i read the obituaries.

Anti-Amereichan

You should reread my comment. I am vehemently anti-war.

You laugh when you read the obituaries because you are a lost child conditioned to reject moral values. I sincerely hope that one day you find wisdom and peace.

Simiantongue

“However, when government is involved, it forces out all potential
competition by driving prices down to artificially low unsustainable
levels because it acquires funding through the theft of the populace
rather than honest business and can spend as much as it desires.”

That was pretty funny. I can almost see the wheels turning in your head. “forces out potential competition…” and “driving prices down…”.

Translation- Government does it cheaper, private enterprise can’t compete. lol Don’t get me wrong here I’m not some cheerleader for statism. But given the choice between that and a privately owned oligarchy. Hmmm, let me think on it a bit.

Andrew

Solar power is becoming less and less expensive. Tax breaks for those who put solar panels on their houses would be a good idea.

Redacted

Can we just start gassing these twats?

http://twitter.com/DanielReasor Daniel Reasor

Do you find it as striking as I do that the real conspiracy in this story is how polluting industries use the GOP, which in turn uses their astroturf Tea Party?